1

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?

« on: Today at 01:26:30 AM »

The exhausted gas is part of the rocket. A rocket is a closed system.

If you want to consider a rocket to be a closed system, then you must not ignore conservation of momentum.  If the exhaust is being accelerated one way, then the rest of the rocket must be accelerated the opposite way in order for momentum to be conserved.  That is, unless you think that accelerating rocket exhaust doesn't exhibit momentum.

Gas, when released to vacuum, performs 0 work.

True, but irrelevant.  All of the relevant work is done inside the rocket engine, before the exhaust is released into the vacuum.

2

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?

« on: December 07, 2023, 11:37:02 PM »

What "angular momentum?"

I’m not talking about rockets in this case. I’m asking simply if you believe the concept of conservation of angular momentum to be correct. Out of curiosity. Literally a yes or no question.

You should have asked about conservation of momentum in general rather than angular momentum in particular.

I'm still curious about what quality of an exhaust plume allows it to push off a medium less dense than itself.

3

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?

« on: December 07, 2023, 03:42:19 AM »

I've no idea what the "plume" is that Action80 refers to in respect of a gas turbine engine. 

My guess is that he's referring to this:

4

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Do rockets push off the air?

« on: December 06, 2023, 11:10:46 PM »

Jet engines do the same.
“After compression it was heated, augmented by additional burning fuel(reported in the press to be kerosene), and finally discharged from the aft vent in a monstrous jet of energy pushing against the atmosphere.”

The atmoplane doesn't seem very solid to me.  Wouldn't that "monstrous jet of energy" just push the atmoplane out of its way, especially at higher altitudes where the air is much thinner?

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: December 06, 2023, 10:20:21 PM »

Even under the scenario that Hunter Biden was collecting money under the guise of providing access to political power, but was really scamming the people paying him, how can you maintain that this shouldn't be investigated by Congress? Why are you guys crying that this should not be investigated?

Hey, it's not as if Joe Biden appointed Hunter as a presidential advisor while Hunter was making truckloads of money from outside business interests.
https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-investigations/jared-and-ivanka-made-up-to-640-million-in-the-white-house/

6

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: December 06, 2023, 09:48:53 PM »

The anti-work song:

7

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: December 06, 2023, 02:07:15 AM »

8

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: December 04, 2023, 02:45:25 AM »

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: December 04, 2023, 02:12:35 AM »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67598948

Are you MAGA lot sick of all the winning yet?

Ironic comment from you since Trump is now winning the polls.

Too bad that winning polls doesn't necessarily translate into winning elections.  Or criminal trials.

10

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: December 01, 2023, 12:22:27 AM »

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: President Joe Biden

« on: November 30, 2023, 10:30:29 PM »

The punchline is that most Republicans can't explain specifically any evidence supporting their narrative. After years of searching, all we keep hearing is 'foreign money from U.S. adversaries' without a molecule of proof. They know how stupid they're going to look when they put Hunter on the stand and it becomes obvious that they have no real evidence.

Nah.  They'll probably just double down and accuse Hunter of lying and charge him with obstruction or something stupid like that,

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 27, 2023, 03:39:52 AM »

Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case.

Lack of evidence?  Obviously the jury thought that there was enough evidence to find Trump liable for sexual assault.  That isn't a trivial charge.  If it were a criminal trial, he would likely be doing jail time and then be required to register as a sex offender.  Is that really the kind of man you want back in the White House?

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 27, 2023, 02:12:15 AM »

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable.

It's quite a lot more probable than you think.  Or don't you think that being paralyzed by fear is a thing?

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

Sure, they're flimsy excuses...   Until you look at the psychology and biology of what happens in the brain when someone is experiencing a highly stressful situation, like being raped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 20, 2023, 11:15:56 PM »

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 19, 2023, 12:52:35 AM »

That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.

Actually, he already did.  It's called a summary judgement.

If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud case

Oh, I'm sure that Trump will appeal.  Probably all the way to the Supreme Court (if they're willing to hear it).  Personally, I think that this civil fraud trial is the least of his worries compared to the criminal charges that he's looking at.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 15, 2023, 09:58:12 PM »

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 15, 2023, 02:31:44 AM »

Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?

I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype. 

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that Cohen's testimony is the prosecution's only, or even strongest, evidence against Trump?

I can only roll my eyes when you continually refuse to see the bigger picture.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:50:52 PM »

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

How many times has Trump been indited?  Are you forgetting that he has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial?  The judge even said that there was enough evidence to fill the courtroom.

Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 13, 2023, 10:33:07 PM »

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.

No.  I'm asking you what you think, given what we all (or at least most of us)  know about how plea deals generally work.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 12, 2023, 10:39:22 PM »

As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.

Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony).  Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal?  As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?

BTW, a plea deal still counts as a conviction.